| Matter of Telsa Z. (Denise Z.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08869 [90 AD3d 1193] |
| December 8, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Telsa Z., an Abused and Neglected Child. ClintonCounty Department of Social Services, Respondent; Denise Z.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael J. Hartnett, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, forrespondent. Cheryl Maxwell, Plattsburgh, attorney for the child.
Garry, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), enteredFebruary 1, 2011, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family CtAct article 10-A, to continue the placement of respondent's child.
Respondent is the mother of two daughters (born in 2000 and 2001) who have been inpetitioner's care since their initial placement in January 2009 in relation to allegations that theirfather repeatedly sexually abused the older child. The father subsequently surrendered hisparental rights to both children following an adjudication of abuse and neglect of the olderdaughter and derivative abuse and neglect of the younger daughter in which these allegationswere sustained. In 2010, respondent was separately found to have neglected both children basedon her awareness of the father's sexual abuse of the older child and failure to protect the children.At that time, Family Court continued the children's placement with petitioner with a permanency[*2]goal of return to respondent and denied visitation with thechildren.[FN1] In January 2011, Family Court held a permanency hearing and issued separate orders for thechildren, which again denied respondent visitation, continued placement of the children withpetitioner and maintained the permanency goal of reunification. Respondent appeals, arguing thatpetitioner failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification as she was denied visitation withthe children.[FN2][FN3]
We affirm. Family Court's continued denial of respondent's visitation was "based oncompelling reasons and substantial evidence that such visitation would be detrimental or harmfulto the child's welfare" (Matter ofRebecca KK., 55 AD3d 984, 985 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citationsomitted]; accord Matter of Hobb Y.,56 AD3d 998, 999 [2008]). The older child's severe mental health issues resulting from herabuse have led to placement at a residential treatment center. Both her social worker andpsychiatrist recommended that there be no visitation between respondent and the child, as thechild has made inconsistent progress and has difficulty handling stressful situations. Despitebeing provided with the means and direction to do so, respondent has failed to communicate withthese service providers to understand the child's mental health and behavioral needs inpreparation for any possible visitation that may occur. We find no abuse of discretion, as therecord fully supports the determination that visitation was not in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Victoria X., 34 AD3d1117, 1118 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 806 [2007]; Matter of Sullivan CountyDept. of Social Servs. v Richard C., 260 AD2d 680, 682-683 [1999], lv dismissed 93NY2d 958 [1999]).
The record further reveals that petitioner provided and recommended services torespondent—including mental health services, sex offender counseling, family safetyeducation and parenting classes—and provided financial assistance to allow respondent toattend, but respondent repeatedly failed to participate in or to complete such programs. As statedabove, petitioner also made efforts to encourage respondent's interactions with the child'streatment and care providers, with little success. Accordingly, Family Court properly determinedthat petitioner had made reasonable efforts toward reunification (see Matter of Bianca QQ. [KiyonnaSS.], 80 AD3d 809, 810 [2011]; Matter of Milicia NN., 30 AD3d 722, 723 [2006]).
Spain, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.
Footnote 1: These orders were affirmedupon appeal (Matter of Telsa Z. [DeniseZ.], 84 AD3d 1599 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 708 [2011]; Matter of Telsa Z. [Denise Z.], 81AD3d 1130 [2011]).
Footnote 2: Respondent's notice of appealreferenced only the order pertaining to the older child, so her arguments concerning the youngerchild are not properly before this Court (see Matter of Cali L., 61 AD3d 1131, 1133 [2009]; Matter of Milicia NN., 30 AD3d722, 723 [2006]).
Footnote 3: The order appealed from waslater amended by Family Court to reflect the revised date of the next permanency hearing; underthese circumstances this Court may review the amended order without the filing of another noticeof appeal (see Matter of Michaela PP.[Derwood PP.], 67 AD3d 1083, 1084 n [2009]).